HomeMy WebLinkAbout014-68 Joseph F. Hughes - Backfile25�
IRON
PLACE L41VD )
LOC
METAL p�HART LAND
COrs F \ �/98, r�N o�
RONT AV/2 0
I-Jcz
�� 6 fRRYV 22
i{
3, LnIROJV
��l
N4go 3.32
4
0.75 AC. LOT. -ELWOOD M. WOLFE -
1-26'401,
(�(
�i
I 225 - 57 L. C.
ii i AC. LOT- MARSHAL L. WARNER-228-315
�COLE gE
L AND ' STON
h
iI
v
I�
I
The Acco►rrpaning Plat is a Survey of the Sarah 0. burner Estate �l
!,Farm. The said Land lies north of the Berryville Pike - Rt.
7, just east of the !�
City of Winchester, :in Stonewall District, Frederick County,
VirGinia:
Beginnirg at an iron pin in the so :Ahern
line of the Old Road',
,the southeastern corner of the Charles ,darner Lot, running with
the said line, the
northern line of the Lots fronting Berryville Pike, and the
southeri., lines of the 12 `yam
-
f4
;Ft. Right - of - Way leading across the Farm to the 0.75 Acre
Lot and 1.0 Acre Lot, CL
N. 690 04' 20" E - 277.2 f t . to a post; thence Pr 610 43' 30"
E - 155.8 ft . to a �..
�o�,� ��y
�����
P,,,) 2 7 S it )7clie'r 25/--�SYI`
2,L�, ]
11
11
VIRGINIA
FREDERICK COUNTY, (SCT.
This Instrument of writing was produced to me on the 26th day
of December, 1961, at 4 : 40 P . M . and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto
annexed was admitted to record.
#2591
KENNEPH E. WARNER EI' AL
TO: .: :: .9 :DEED
JOSEPH F. HUGHES, ET UX
THIS DUO made and dated this 15th day of December, 1961, by
and between Kenneth E. Warner, Executor, and Helen V. Wolfe, Executrix, of the
Estate of Sarah 0. Warner, Daceased, parties of the first part, Joseph F. Hughes &
Ethelyn A. Hughes, his wife, co-partners trading as Joseph F. Hughes & Company,
parties of the second part, and Edgar Kenneth Warner and Evelyn G. Warner, his
wife, Elwood Murphy Wolfe and Helen Virginia Wolfe, his wife, Evelyn K. Warner,
widow of Marshall L. Warner and Catherine J. McTiernan, formerly the widow of
Charles William Warner, deceased, and Patrick A. I4,cTiernan, her husband, all parties
of the third part.
UHREAS, the late Sarah 0. Warner by her last will and testament
duly probated and of record :Ln the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick
i� County, Virginia, in Will 3ook No. 64, page 270, directed her Executor and
Executrix to sell her real estate; and
WHFdTAS, the said parties of the first part being; the duly
qualified Executor and Executrix of said estate, offered the hereinafter described '�
property for sale at public auction, after due advertisement of the time, terms
�4
and place thereof, at which said sale the parties of the second part became the
purchasers at the bid of Sixty-two Thousad Dollars ($62,000.00), that being the
highest offer received; and
WHEREAS, the purchase price of said property has been paid in
cash at and before the execution and delivery of this deed.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and the sum of
Sixty-two Thousand Dollars ($62,000.00) cash in hand paid, the receipt of which
I'
1 is hereby acknowledged, the said parties of the first part do hereby grant, sell., !`
and convey, with special warranty of title, unto the partied of the second part,
their heirs and assigns forever, all of that certain tract or parcel of land con-
taining 202.78 acres, more or less, together with all improvements and appurtenances
thereto belonging„ lying and being situate a short distance North of the Berryville
Pike, Virginia State Highway No. 7, just East of the City of Winchester, in
Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia, and being the sa::ze land that was
conveyed to the late E. H. Warner and his wife Sarah 0. Warner, with common law
right of survivorsh'_p by said E. H. Warner et ux, by deed dated Marc 1, 1958, an(
of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book No. 251, page 264, and which.'
;upon the subsequent death of said E. H. Warner vested in his surviving wife, Sarah
0. Warner, in accordance with the provisions of said deed. Said deed describes
said tract of land as containing 199 acres, more or less, but according to a recent
Imetes and bounds description of said land made by Lee A. Ebert, Surveyor, is
attached to, and by this reference incorporated in, this deed.
WHEREAS, the parties of the third part are the owners of certa•
properties fronting on the hereinafter described right of way and desire, together,
with the parties of the second part, to determine and fix their respective rights
and responsibilities in connection therewtli, therefore
THIS DEED FURTHER WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration
the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) cash in hand paid by the parties of the second part
to the parties of the third part and by each of the parties of the third part to
the parties of the second part, the parties of the first and second parts do afire
that the boundaries of the right of way described on the attached plat and survey
of Lee A. Ebert, dated November 10, 1961, as a 15 foot right of way leading from
the Berryville Pike is as described in said plat and survey and further that said
right of way shall be used or maintained in common by the parties of the second
part and the parties of the third part, their administrators, heirs, executors,
and assigns, for all purposes of ingress and egress to and from their respective
properiies and the Berryville Pike also known as U. S. Route No. ?.
Witness the following signatures and seals.
KENNETH E. WARNER, EXOR. (SEAL)
zxeCULor
or the r;sta%e or
**********************
Sarah
0.
Warner, Deceased
REVEPNE STAMPS
$68.20
CANCELT *
HELEN
V.
WOLFE (SEAT,)
*********************Executrix
or Efte Es a e o
Sarah
0.
Warner, Deceased
State of Virginia
County of Frederick, to -wit:
JOSEPH F. HUGHES (SEAL)
Partner
ETHEIlYN A. HUGHES (SEAL)
Partner
EDGAR KENNETH WARNER
(SEAL)
EVELYN G . WARNER
I (SEAL) i
EILWOOD MURPHY WOLFE
( SEAL)
HELEN VIRGINIA. WOIFE
( SEAL)
EVELYN K . WARNER
( SEAL)
CATHERINE J. MCTIERNAN
I
(SEAL)
PATRICK A .,fcTIERNAN (SEAL)
I, Virginia Ritter, a Notary Public in and for the County of
Frederick, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that Kenneth E. Warner,-
Executor,- and Helen V. Wolfe, Executrix, of the Estate of Sarah 0. Warner, Deceased,
and Edgar Keruieth Warner and Evelyn G. Warner, his wife, Elwood Murphy Wolfe and
Helen Virginia Wolfe, his wife, Evelyn K. Warner, widow, and Catherine J. McTiernafi
and Patrick A. McTiernan, her husband, whose naives are signed to the foregoing
writing bearing date of December 15t1-1, 1961, have personally appeared before Brie, ixi
my county afresaid, and acknowledged the same.
Given under ,my riand this 1C'th day of IX�cember, l9bl.
1.1Y commission expires March 109 l9(;�+.
t j; State of Maryland
County of Baltimore, to -wit:
VIRGINIA RITTER
Notary Pubiic
I, R . Jean Alder, a Notary Public in and for the ounty of Balti,.
more, in the State of Maryland, do hereby certify that Joseph F. Hughes & Ethelyn
A. Hughes, his wife, co-partners trading as Joseph F. Hughes & Com-,.any, whose name
are signed to the foregoing waiting bearing date of December 15, 1961, have
personally appeared before me, in may county aforesaid, and acknowledged the same.
Given under i W hand and notarial seal this 26th day of December;
1 caF,1 .
�5
254
t
0
_µ-�-�•.:.._.—�--�.�
an iron pin corner to the 1.0 Acre Tot; thence with a portion of the western line i
of the said Lot, crossing the eastern line of the said Right - of - Way, N 300 1211
W - 12 ft. to an iron pin corner to the said 0.75 Acre Lot; thence with the two
following lines of the said Lot S 62' 11' 30" W - 198 ft. to a metal post; thence
N 240 37' 30" W - 170 ft. to a post; thence with another line of the said Lot and
I'
contInuing with the northern line of the said 1.0 Acre Lot N 620 11' 30" E - 428.7j
ft. to an iton pin; thence with the eastern line of the said Lot S 270 37' 30" E
181.8 ft. to an iron pin corner in the northern line of the Lots fronting Berryville
Pike; thence with the four following lines of the said Lots N 62' 11' 30" E - 46.T,l
ft. to an iron pin; thence N 54' 54' E 506.89 ft. to an iron pin, the said pin be
N 870 E - 7.25 ft. from a 30" Oak Tree; thence N 470 07' 30" E - 181.85 ft. to an I
iron pin; thence S 700 10' E - 408.85 ft. to an iron pin corner to the L. C. Cole .I
i
Land; thence with the northwestern line of tYie said Land N 460 26' 40" E - 1193.32�1
ft. to a set stone corner to the Dr. Smith I -and; thence with the southwestern line;
of the said Land N 59' 00' 09" W - 3915.0 ft. to an iron pin corner to the Lockhart
Land; thence with the southeastern line of the said band N 420 17' 30" W - 1452.88,
�i
ft. to a metal post corner to the Place Land; thence with the two following lines
of the said Land N 430 26' 15" W - 862.95 ft. to an iron pin; thence S 470 17' 30",
E - 1876.82 ft. to an iron pin corner to the Charles Warner Lot; thence with the
two following lines of the said Lot N 390 12' 30" E 200 ft. to an iron pin; thencdl
S 470 59' 54" E - 1069.86 ft. to the beginning. Containing; - - 202.76 Acres.
Also shown is the 15 Ft. Right - of Way leading from the
Berryville Pike to the Point of Beginning of the Farm; Beginning at a metal post
corner to the Gentry Lot in the northern highway boundary lane of the Berryville (�
Pike, running with the said highway boundary line S 870 E - 15.25 ft.; thence N
,I 13° 25' E - 200 f t . to an iron pin; thence N 150 15' E - 99.15 f t . to an iron pin;
i
thence N 200 30' E - 41.05 ft. to an iron pin; thence N 410 E - 52.1 ft. to an
iron pin; thence N b-50 19' E -231 ft. to an iron pin, the Point of Beginning of
f the Farm, also the southeastern corner of the Charles Warner Lot; thence with the
�{ northeastern end of the said Right - of - Way N 470 59' 54 W - 16.33 ft.; thence
S 650 19' W - 227.76 ft. to an iron pin; thence S 410 W - 58.04 ft. to an iron
pin; thence S 200 30' 1.1 - 44.45 ft. to an iron pin; thence S 150 15' W - 100.08 ft'
to an iron pin; thence S 130 25' W - 203.05 ft. to the beginning.
i
Also shown are the Gas Company Lot and the Right - of Way
leading from the said Lot, the Gas Line Right - of - Ways and the Northern Virginia,
Power Company Line Right - of - Way.
Surveyed - - - November 10, 1961. LEE A. EBERT
Certified Land Surveyor,
Comm. of Virginia /f 84.
VIRGINIA
FREDERICK COMM!, (SCT. �
This Instrument of writing was prc-uced to ra-, oil the 27th day
of December, 1961, at 10:45 A. M. and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto
annexed was admitted to record.
2 Win, :�Ql�
,YhPs
�+. -� s,�c�. (�
� E aa�y ,
£, ,. '; :-
9
IV
'kr#���
/ 1 �
.�<'����4 - '4
,. _ _ _
��� �2�Yiiti� 2
6jWn,
,t .'`.� _
r. ``
_ ..
n
� 3�. _ IZ:
._. <
4 �'.
�_ .��.
ob
-- -.
-��� ° - -
-
'��
'
_L
�, � . •-
. <, .
��-.
5` >�,f� � Q,..
�,, �`
r 3R _.
4
i S
i � � its � M' � -.
_� - ��
��� 'fib `fie'_ '� _� - .-
� ..w ...
...-� _. _
__.r,
�y
o//
O_
•� ' ' _,6.
_ -
- ���- �f
ti - ��
r J.� }-7� � _ _ _
bpi k ., 4 °.�,� - ii -
�� � .. �-r 'ems.
Y� t £` r
-.
w
4 `r ' "
,,�;..��,:: rt�..,
� r' `., .
<�_
August 12, 1968
Mr. Thomas B. Rosenberger, Chairman
Board of Supervisors of
Frederick founty, Virginia
1vinchester, Virginia 22601
lann.i,,g CQmn:is_siQn - Application of
Joseph Hughes and wife an,' Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corporation
Gear Mr. Rosenberger:
The Frederick County Plenning Commission held a
public meeting on the 7th Oay of August, 1968, after first
duly advertising tht- same, concerning the application of
the petitioners, Joseph Hughes and wife and Shenandoah Brick
kind rile Corporation for the rezoning uk 202 acres, more or
less, just North of Virgigi.a Route 7 and just East of Inter-
state Route No, S1, known as the garner Farm, the petition
requesting the change from residential and business zoning
to industrial*2 zoning for the purpose of strip mining
shale for brick making.
Please be advised that the Planning Commission,
after a lengthy public hearing on August 7, 1968, approved
the application of the petitioners and recommenes its
anpr -a to -the Board -cif Supervisors or Frederick County.
`the apprc.,t,a1 was con:-itioned upon the limiting
i ?e urea to strip minirg only, the oiling of the access
road,,.sy from Rowe , upon commencexient of operations and the
!7U1:,.3re treciti.np o" said roadway within one year after commence-
ment of operations, and conditioned upon their meeting now
the requirements o _he Strip Minin- Reclamation Act.
Respectfully submitted,
FREDXRICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIOF
PETITION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIP
AND THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Joseph F. Hughes and Ethelyn A. Hughes, �xaa�,xx
hereby petition the Frederick County
Planning Commission to re -zone the area shown gridded on the
attached map marked Exhibit 1.
1. This parcel is located a short distance East of
Interstate Highway No. 81 and a short distance North of U. S.
Highway No. 7 in Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County,
Virginia.
2. The above parcel consists of 202.78 acres, more or
less, and is the same realty conveyed to Joseph F. Hughes and
Company by deed of Kenneth E. Warner, Executor, etc., et al,
dated December 15, 1961 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia.
3. Subsequent to said deed from Kenneth E. Warner,
Executor, etc., et al, Joseph F. Hughes and Company leased said
property to Shenandoah Brick and Tile Corporation, a photostat
of which lease dated April 11, 1962 is hereto attached marked
Exhibit 2.
4. That at the time the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
was published the undersigned residents of Baltimore were
unaware that their land would be zoned partially R-2 and partially
W
LAW OFFICES
LARRICK AND WHITE
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
�Y
5. That said land was acquired for the sole purpose of
being used as a source of raw materials for Shenandoah Brick and
Tile Corporation in the manufacturing of brick; and that your
Petitioners are now advised that Shenandoah Brick and Tile
Corporation has almost depleted its present source of raw
materials and desires to commence removal of shale from the land
leased to it by your Petitioners.
6. Your Petitioners are advised by Shenandoah Brick and
Tile Corporation that in removing raw materials Shenandoah Brick
and Tile Corporation will not use the roadway designated as
Wilson Drive.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioners pray pursuant to Article 14
that the Zoning Ordinance of Frederick County, Virginia be amendec
and that their land be re -zoned from R-2 and A to Industrial
General M-2.
JOSEPH F. HUGHES and FTHELYN A. HUGHES,
By Counsel
LARRICK AND WHITE
33 East Boscawen Street
Winchester, Virginia
Counsel for Pe itioners
By:
,� YJ
71 J. Frederick Larrick
LAW OFFICES
LARRICK ANO WHITE
-2-
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
lik I
I 1t 1 4 i
.f4P e)
4.
L4
r
01
Sol:
A
A
4
N
p`r7oG0\9'�1 9�*
At %.0
IV
0 � Z-N 6
.�
.�
x
°f-
A
0
0
Cb O) i
�
2
Spa°t
ad
c,o
40a
0
Q�
07
s
05'
2
w'ro
`44.
W � Sa-0
E K.�Wgq'-
_ eon Owes. `
CH'c Es
S47 59 -%4wE eq LOT
In 7,(& rr
4
z
PL'aCE
L- 4N0
690C34��„f ti 86' Z
Z
1° c�' o a
* �3Q/% 55 1 .�� 0 N
70,
�s
4 �\
S 47°17'3C
GAs
�- LIME
V VIAk --�_
ti
G
n ,
°OWEa
L 1 Iv E
N 5 9°00' 09" W- 3 915 0'
z`�
SMITH LA ND
rel
Z 4.
=77-1
Fsar
bn
�Iv
41
oq/ � z
I!
.
�i
r
IRON PIN PLACE LANO 1
I
I
! METAL POTKHART
5 43 26 15 W-gs
LANo l
9
Rub
I 5 42 17 30 W_ 1452
I IRON .I
eb PIN
I �y
II
V
��
-
Z W
?
Z I
II
.\
Q W
O
M
�
Ix to
O
II
II
hN39.
'
IIRII
Qo
va—
12'30•E
p �,
IRON
PIN
�
r
IRON PIN
I
yy
GAS C v PS'
O
I Q
Z N
W)
�rn0
Z
N �; 3• � o W 3-.0 Q �
•��• �.�vl • �0
�W N "
o
J� O
=In
b o
Z
IJ
II
_
2
cog 62 •
a
r
v
s_ i
9,
/ O i 1F� ��N 428>o F
�'�
to ,
7 °�+ '•a nor
��
YCyddv% V�4+%`J2 46SI�30,f0f,19
\
30• a i
ZZ N?'k `f'SOseg >' 8 N47 d73p„ E
sze��
6
16L�,
30„ IRO
' LOrs F.190 pINN
W�
F pm
'
i
RrVILLF N
,( jOlkf 1RONPgry
I
N 11933
4s•�,4�,
III
y }
0 75 AC. LOT. -ELWOOD M. WOLFE -
- L.
f.
225 57 C
I AC. LOT- MARSHAL L. WARNER-228-315 I
COLf
LAND SEi S10f,
II
� �4J
I°
The Accompaning Plat is a Survey of the Sarah 0. WarnerEstate
Farm. The Land lies the
said north of Berryville Pike - Rt.
7, just east of the
'
City of Winchester, in Stonewall District, Frederick County,
Vir[inia: li 4i
v
Beginnirg at an iron pin in the so,thern line of the Old Roads
P�
the southeastern corner of the Charles Warner Lot, running with the said line, the
northern line of the Lots fronting Berryville Pike, and the southern lines of the 12
h O
Ft. Right - of - Way leading across the Farm to the 0.75 Acre Lot and 1.0 Acre Lot,
,: N. 69' 04' 20" E - 277.2 ft. to a post; thence N 61° 43' 30"
E - 155•8 ft. to a
z1fe,5/ '), f S` / ly�f � 5 ! —,� �y ("/ l
G 1
z
VIRGINIA
FREDERICK COUNTY, (SCT.
This Instrument of writinE was produceu to ne on the 26th'day
of December, 1961, at 4:40 P. Ni. and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto
j� annexed was admitted to record.
1! #2591
KKNNEPH E. WARNS, ET AL
I, TO: :: :DEED * 3,
it JOSEPH F. HUGHES, ET UX
THIS DEED made and dated this 15th day of December, 1961, by
and between Kenneth E. Warner, Executor, and Helen V. Wolfe, Executrix, of the
Estate of Sarah 0. Warner Deceased pll�l`a , , parties of the first part, Joseph F. Hughes &•
I, Ethelyn A. Hughes, his wife, co-partners trading as Joseph F. Hughes & Company, I i
parties of the second part, and Edgar Kenneth Warner and Evelyn G. Warner, his I
wife, Elwood Murphy Wolfe and Helen Virginia Wolfe, his wife, Evelyn K. Warner, !
widow of Marshall L. Warner and Catherine J. McTiernan, formerly the widow of
Charles William Warner, deceased, and Patrick A. I•ScTiernan, her husband, all parties
Of the third pert.
WHEREAS, the late Sarah 0. Warner by her last will and testament
II duly probated and of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick
County, Virginia, in Will Book No. 64, page 270, directed her Executor and !
Executrix to sell her real estate; and �!
it
WHEREAS, the said parties of the first part being the duly �) qualified Executor and Executrix of said estate, offered the hereinafter described
� o rt p pr pe y for sale at public auction, after due advertisement of the time, terms I!
! r
and place thereof, at which said sale the parties of the second part became the
Purchasers at the bid of Sixty-two Thousad Dollars ($62,000.00), that being the
N
highest offer received; and
i
WHEREAS, the purchase price of said property has been paid in
'bash at and before the execution and delivery of this deed.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and the sum of N
.,'Sixty-two Thousand Dollars ($62,000,00) cash in hand paid, the receipt of which II
is hereby acknowledged, the said parties of the first part do hereby grant, sell, p
and convey, with special warranty of title, unto the parties of the second part,
their heirs and assigns forever, all of that certain tract or parcel of land con-
taining 202.78 acres, more or less, together with all improverjents and appurtenances
thereto belonging, lying and being situate a short distance North of the Berryville
Y PPike, Virginia State highway No. 7, just East of the City of Winchester, in
Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia, and being the sane land that, was
4'
Conveyed to the late E. H. Warner and his wife Sarah 0. Warner, with common law ,
right of survivorship by said E. H. Warner et ux, by deed dated Nar< 1, 1958, an,
of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book No. 251 page 264, and which
upon the subsequent death of said E. H. Warner vested in his surviving wife, Sarah
y0. Warner, in accordance with the provisions of said deed. Said deed describes a
said tract of land as containing 199 acres, more or less, but according to a rocenJ
252
T—
metes and bounds description of said land made by Lee A. Ebert, Surveyor, is
attached to, and by this reference incorporated in, this deed.
I
WHEREAS, the parties of the third part are the owners of certa•
i
properties fronting on the hereinafter described right of way and desire, together!
d
with the parties of the second part, to determine and fix their respective rights ++
and responsibilities in connection therewith, therefore �q
THIS DEED FURTHER WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of�jl
the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) cash in hand paid by the parties of the secand part �I
to the parties of the third part and by each of the parties of the third part to
the parties of the second part, the parties of the first and second parts do agree
that the boundaries of the right of way described on the attached plat and survey
l
of Lee A. Ebert, dated November 10, 1961, as a 15 foot right of way leading from
the Berryville Pike is as described in said plat and survey and further that said
right of way shall be used or maintained in common by the parties of the second II
part and the parties of the third part, their administrators, heirs, executors,
and assigns, for all purposes of ingress and egress to and from their respective
properiies and the Berryville Pike also known as U. S. Route No. 7.
Witness the following signatures and seals.
INNETH E. WARNER EXOR. (SEAL)
ecuoro a saeo
REVENUE STAMPS
TAMPS TAMP********* Sarah 0. Warner, Deceased
$68.2o
ANCELLID * HELEN V. WOIFE (SEAL)
T**A******AAA**PA**P** ecu r of Estate o
Sarah 0. Warner, Deceased
JOSEPH F . HUGHES _(SEAL)
ar ner
II
ETHELYN A. HUGHES
(SEAL) ,I
Partner
EDGAR KEN14ETH WARNER
(SEAL)
EV=N G. WARNER
I
(SEAL) .I
ELWOOD MURPHY WOLFE
(SEAL) II
HELEN VIRGINIA WOIFE
n
(SEAL) NI
EVELYN K. WARNER
(SEAL) it
CATHERINE J. McTIERNAN
(SEAL)
State of Virginia PATRICK A.;fcTTERNAN
(SEAL) i!
County of Frederick, to -wit:
I, Virginia Ritter, a Notary Public in and for the County of
Frederick, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that Kenneth E. Warner, �I
Executor, and Helen V. Wolfe, Executrix, of the Estate of Sarah 0. Warner, Deceased,
and Edgar Kenneth Warner and Evelyn G. Warner, his wife, Elwood Murphy Wolfe and
Helen Virginia Wolfe, his wife, Evelyn K. Warner, widow, and Catherine J. McTiernafi
and Patrick A. McTiernan, her husband, whose names are signed to the foregoing
writing bearing date of December 15th, 1961, have personally appeared before me, i"
my county a2resaid, and acknowledged the same. r
Given under my nand this l6th day of December, 1961. II
1•1y commission expires Alarch 10, 1964. �
VIRGINIA RITTER
State of Maryland Notary u c it
County of Baltimore, to -wit:
I, R. Jean Alder, a Notary Public in and for thelCounty of BaltiT
more, in the State of Maryland, do hereby certify that Joseph F'. Hughes & Ethelyn
A. Hughes, his wife, co-partners trading as Joseph F. Hughes & Coc^any, whose named
are signed to the foregoing writing bearing date of December 15, 1j61, have
personally appeared before me, in ray county aforesaid, and acknowledged the same.
Given under my hand and notarial seal this 26th day of December.
254
7.
an iron pin corner to the 1.0 Acre Tot; thence with a nortion of the western line
of the said Lot, crossing the eastern line oi' the said Right - of - Way, N 30° 120i
W - 12 ft. to an iron pin corner to the said 0.75 Acre Lot; thence with the two ill
following lines of the said Lot S 620 11' 30" W - 198 ft, to a metal post; thence I
i N 24° 37' 30" W - 170 ft. to a post; thence with another line of the said Lot and !I
continuing with the northern line of the said 1.0 Acre Lot N 62° 11' 30" E - 428.7�
i
ft. to an iton pin; thence with the eastern line of the said Lot S 270 37' 30" E -y
i181.8 ft. to an iron pin corner in the northern line of the Tots fronting Berryville
Pike; thence with the four following, lines of the said Lots N 620 11' 30" E - 46.7i
ft. to an iron pin; thence N 540 54' E 506.89 ft. to an iron pin, the said pin being
N 870 E - 7.25 ft. from a 30" Oak Tree; thence N 470 07' 30" E - 181.85 ft. to an II
f '
iron pin; thence S 700 10' E - 408.85 ft. to an iron pin corner to the L. C. Cole
Land; thence with the northwestern line of the said Land N 460 26' 40" E - 1193.32ii
ft. to a set stone corner to the Dr. Smith Land; thence with the southwestern linel
of the said Lend N 59° 00' 09" W - 3915.0 ft. to an iron pin corner to the Lockhart
tl
Land; thence with the southeastern line of the said Land N 42° 17' 30" W - 1452.8BI
ft. to a metal post corner to the Place Land; thence with the two following lines
of the said Land N 430 26' 15" W - 862.95 ft. to an iron pin; thence S 47° 17' 30",',
E - 1876.82 ft. to an iron pin corner to the Charles Warner Lot; thence with the i
two following lines of the said Lot N 390 12' 30" E 200 ft. to an iron pin; thenceq
S 470 59' 54" E - 1069.86 ft. to the be innir contain'
g g• Ong - - 202.78 Acres.
Wa
Also shown is the 15 Ft. Right - o£ i g y leading from the I� �
Berryville Pike to the Point of Beginning of the Farm; Beginning at a metal post h
corner to the Gentry Lot in the northern highway boundary line of the Berryville
Pike, running with the said highway boundary line S 87° E - 15.25 ft.; thence N
13° 25' E - 200 ft. to an iron pin; thence N 150 15' E - 99.15 ft. to an iron pinj!
thence N 20° 30' E - 41.05 ft. to an iron pin; thence N 41° E - 52.1 ft. to an
iron pin; thence N 650 19' E -231 ft. to an iron pin, the Point of Beginning of
the Farm, also the southeastern corner of the Charles Warner Lot; thence with the
northeastern end of the said night - of - Way N 470 59' 5471 W - 16.33 ft.; thence
S 650 19' W - 227.76 ft. to an iron pin; thence S 410 W - 58.04 ft. to an iron 11
u
pin; thence S 200 30' W - 44.45 ft. to an iron pin; thence S 150 15' W - 100.08 ft'.
to an iron pin; thence S 130 25' W - 203.05 ft. to the beginning.
Also shown are the Gas Company Lot and the Right - of Way
leading from the said Lot., the Gas Line Right - of - Ways and the Northern Virginia
Power Company Line Right - of - Way.
Surveyed - - - November 10, 1961. LEE A. EBERT ;)
Certified Land Surveyor, jl
Comm. of Virginia ,t 484.
�j
VIRGINIA
FREDERICK COUNTY, (SCT.
This Inctrur-ent of writing was prc-aced to me ci. the 27th day
of December, 1961, at 10:45 A. M. and with certificate of acknowleuignent thereto
annexed was admitted to record.
ego , CLERK i
K\. � � � cra�va�E fsiya2
t
1Y 1 On
��, __ -.. �.. �A�A.'�.Y. rt'!�Ls .+y •L�ERSi:..� �� �'�'3T.1.. _ :1
- •�
4 � A• .ASS �
AL -
+ux
�^�
�,� s
'�i ��
Ewe .f �, �^ +_�+ x' '�• •ram p
'
yrs.
s
P ..
P/
N O T I C E
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF FREDERICK
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, WHICH WAS ADOPTED ON THE 13TII DAY OF MARCH,
1967, TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF 202.78 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OWNED
BY JOSEPH F. HUGHES ET TX LOCATED A SHORT DISTAN�-E EAST OF
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 81 AND A SHORT DISTANCE NORTH OF
U. S. HIGHWAY NO. 7 IN STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, FROM R-2. and A TO INDUSTRIAL GENERAI. M-2
The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, will
hold a public hearing on Monday, September 9, 1968, at 7:30 p.m.,
in the Board Room, County Office Building, Winchester, Virginia,
upon the foll.owinci proposed ordinance:
"BE IT ENACTED that 202.78 acres, more or less,
owned by Joseph F. Hughes and Ethelyn A. Hughes,
located a short distance East of Interstate
Highway No. 81 and a short distance North of
U. S. Highway No. 7 in Stonewall Magisterial
District, Frederick County, Virginia, beinn the
same realty conveyed to Joseph F. Hughes and
Company by deed of Kenneth E. Warner, Executor
etc. et al, dated December 15, 1961, and
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Frederick County, Virginia, gridded on
a map marked as "Exhibit 1" and filed with the
Petitioneof Joseph F. Hughes andEthelyn A.
Hughes, be rezoned from R-2 and A to Industrial
General M-2."
Petitions and tip exhibits, if any, and a copy of the
proposed ordinance as set forth above may be examined in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
Virginia.
FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF STJPERVIS03S
��AM
Yeorae A3, Wh.itaYre, CT
i
THIS LBASE* made this llth day of April ,
19UP between Joseph F. Hughes and Bthelyn A. Hughes, his wife,
eoyartnors, T/A Joseph F. Hughes and Company, of the one part,
bereinafter called the Lessors, and Shenandoah Brick and Tile
Corporation, of the other part, hereinafter called the Lessee.
WITliUSM: That the Lessors, for and in consideration
of the rents and covenants hereinafter set forth, do demise and
-
lease unto the Lessee, for the term of 30 years,
commencing on the filth day of ii , 19 62 and
ending on the __;IIIL day of April , 192�_, the
i
sole and wwlusive right and privilege of mining and removing
036y, stone, rock and minerals of every description and kind,
Hader the following tract or parcel of land: All of that
OWN" farm containing 20R,T8 acres, more or less, lying and
":'•
1. situate W ebert distance North of the Berryville Pike
(VUVW state MOM7 No, 7), Just east Of the City of
1
WineUmber, Wrgiria, in Stonewall Magisterial District,
lsk County, Virginia; and being the ears realty conveyed
`
a tM Lessors by flood of Kenneth N. Warper, Rxecuter, ate., et
al, &%ed December lg, 1961, and to be recorded in the Clerks
Otfldo of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia,
+�
jrmdlately preceding this lease.
t
The Lessee covenants as follows;
a
1, To pay as rent a royalty of twenty cents (200) per
'
ton for all clay or shale removed from the demised premises,
'
#&14 rent shall be paid monthly on or before the 30th day of
"Oh calendar month few tM .ei�eodar ifttb iumsdlotel y Wree"i&S.
.
%e Isseoe shall on or before the 30th day of eaeb
ealseiar math furnish to the Lessors a report showing the
quantity of material taken hereunder during the preceding
:
•T
rJ/y
Calendar month and shall also comply with any further rules and
regulations that msY be proscribed by the Le$sora for agreed
"DW%lon and report of the Quantities of the materials remov*d.
Vboald &MY question aria* between the losaors and the Lessee as
ii bb* reaaon*blenesa as to any rule or regulation that -any be
ptM80r1W by the Lea►aor under this paragraph. the Lessee may
skit sueb Question to arbitration as hereinafter provided,
to TO pay all taxes and assessments that may be levied
"slot the land ber*io described.
3, Not to mert4age, assign, Convey, leas*, sub•lot or
set ever act► of its estate, int*rest or rights hereum%r, or a"
c * lameto!', to a 904
'° ", ..,,aH, s • RY �` Or OOMOi'at10q, without the ooeuent,
xj,
at the Ieasers,
;� re ri said tley or aMle in sucb a m"n" ae to
1Wd after removal in a aeaditlsa
M=y eo ag t4SL WW present ceutours of bbe land leh.
NO material V~od, It being the tat*otien of this
� ... .
1M�t the Lenses
not lOove holes, quarries or outs or
Ai the Ooaolustpa of its operation. Th* top $oil resrved
::� , ► #Nssee shall be Stook piled and when operations under this
4-*ftinato r*digtribut*d at tb* Le89ee16 aspens* over the
t t eits area from which material has beg
o removed as con•
t*Wlatsd by this lease.
Lessee shall keep books of account of the
z a #srla'ls VON"" ftom said property, which books shall be open
pt all reasonable times for the inspection of the Lessors.
1. _.
The Lessors oovenant as follows:
10 That the 4Ma8ee shall peaceably hold and enjoy the
Q�ti$od premises.
-1 " It if ratually understood,and agreed as follows:
Yr
2
� iy
1. In case of a baeach of any of the covenants on the
Lessees part herein contained, or in case the estate hereby
created shall be taken from the Lessee by process of law or by
promo+ding$ in bankruptcy or insolvency or otherwise, t)e Leasers
may, While the default shall continue, or at any time after such
taking, and notwithstanding any license or waiver of any prior
breach of condition, without notice ar demand, enter upon the
protlses, and thereby determine this demise, and may thereupon
olpel and remove, forcibly, if necessary, the Lessee and its
orroets.
!. In OWN Of a determination of this demise by a re.
-04"Y ,as hereinbefore provided, the Lessee shall indemnify the
18*Mrs for all loss Or dam which it may suffer during the
rpidNO of the said tor, by reason of such dotorminatlea, rbetber
tbrowO leas or dooro"* of rent or otborwise.
34 The &sancta shall not lie liable to the %peg of
Ok* perasa far War loss or "Mgt suffered during this
Nils &O49Mt of any defective condition or depreciation of
l soi prOMMO or any structures or epuipamat upon the
and the Lessee assumes ill risks to persons or property
ins to latent or pownt defeats in the promisee and fixtures
Mleftom, and the Lessee covenants to carry liability insurance on
said promises.
s. The losses shall have the right to remove from the
leased premises, at the expiration of this lease, all personal
proporty of every kind and description on said premises owned by
us Losses.
1NK
5. In the event of difference arising between the
J"sors and the Lease*, under the terms ofthis lease
�•e, , or the
ew.rWMt struction of any clause thereof, or the rights and obligations
_j_
O//
LAW 40""Its
J. FREDERICK LARRICK
t1�6N[1T[1, �1111 NIA
A111CIATE
JOREPH N. WHITE
of the Lessors or the Lessee hereunder, all such questions shall
be determined by arbitration, but pending arbitration between the
parties hereto, there shall be no cancellation or forfeiture of
this lease. In all such cases the matters in difference shall be
referred to two arbitrators, one to be chosen by the Lessors and
one by the Lessee, and if said arbitrators cannot agree, they
shall select a third, and the decision of any two of such three
arbitrators shall be final and binding, and shall be accepted as
such by the parties hereto.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
( SEAL,
�1- ( SEAL
Et elyn . Hughes
Co-partner , T/A Joseph F. Hughes and
Company
By:
Attest:
Helen M. Hughes dr
Assistant Secretary
STATE OF MARYLAND,
COUNTY OF BALTMORE , To -wit:
I, R. J...A'T ALITM
LNDOAH BRICK AND TILE-,
seph Hughes
real nt i
f.
ION
, a Notary Public
of and for the State and County aforesaid, do certify that Joseph
F. Hughes and Ethelyn A. Hughes, co-partners, T/A Joseph F.
- 4 -
�y
w
6 rKSIA1fM L"NICK
MMiMAq
Hughes and Company, whose names are signed to the foregoing instr
went, bearing date on Mw 11th day of April , 19620
have acknowledged the same before we in oar State and County
aforesaid.
(liven under my hand this llth day of April 1962'
My commission expires may 6, 1963
STATE OF WLRTLLIID ,
COUNTY OF BAbTDIDEN , TO -Wit:
I, R. JIB$ JTXM
Notary Public
, d Notary Public of
and for the State and County aforesaid, do certify that Joseph F.
and Helen K. Homes , President and
ALsdietMtt aooretary, respectively, of Shenandoah Brick and Tile
Corporation, whose names are signed to the foregoing instrument,
bearing date on the llth day of April , 19620 have
acknowledged the same before me in my State and County aforesaid.
Given under my hand this 11th day of April 1962
MY commission expires Max 6. 1963
1t
Votar
ublic
- 5 -
PETITION TO 71" BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF FRFDFIiICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
LET IT BE KNOWN that the undersigned employees of Shenandoah Brick & Tile
Corp. favor the rezoning from R2 and A to M-2 of the 202 acres, formerly the
Warner farm, and purchased by Joseph F. Hughes and Fthelyn Hughes of Baltimore,
Md. at public auction in December 1961, and leased in April 1962 to Shenandoah
Brick & Tile Corp. for mineral rights, aid subsequent reclamation. We are
college student employees at Shenandoah Brick & Tile Corp. for summer work and
have been assured of employment for succeeding summers. Lack of employment
would make it difficult for us to meet college expenses should the Shenandoah
t•
Brick & Tile be obliged to cease operation because lack of raw material for
IR
the ;}manufacture of its product.
RESIDRNT OF
NAME CITY/COi1NTY COUNTY DISTRICT
r
r�
3
ULZ471--� I- fik�vl '
Q�� I
Py.TITION TO THE BOARD OF STIPERVISORS
OF FRFUMICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
LET IT BE KNOIPM that the undersigned employees of Shenandoah Brick & Tile
Corp. and their wives/or husbands, favor the rezoning from R2 and A to M-2 of
the 202 acres, formerly the Earner farm, and purchased by Joseph F. Hughes and
Ethelyn Hughes of Raltimore, Md. at public auction in December 1961, and leased
in April 1962 to Shenandoah Brick & Tile Corp. for mineral rights, and subsequent
reclamation. We stand to suffer great economic loss, and many of us have long
years of service in the employ of the company, should the Shenandoah Brick 8- Tile
be obliged to cease operation because lack of raw material for the manufacture
of its product.
RESID?l]T OF
NA'�'E CITY/COUNTY COTINTY DISTRICT
Ile I
A
AO- FIV41VWAJ
.r
i
Ctit
l ♦ L:s Z
V
A,
s
I=,
O/Y
NAME
ffl.�MA I �Wlk lgp�d
RESUM T OF
CITY/COUNTY
CO?INTY DISTRICT
/t / W •
�y
RESID iTr OF
NAi'IE CITE/�,, irn TY CC LINTY DISTRICT
L•sWY-LJ
MITION TO TH"_ BOARD OF SUPF-tVISORS
OF FRrDMICK C0JNTY, VIRGINIA
�y
64 Q v
LF.T IT B7 KNOWN that the undersigned employees Hof Shenandoah Brick & Tile
Corp. favour the rezoning from R2 and A to 4-2 of the 202 acres, former3y the
Warner farm, and purchased by Joseph F. Hughes and Ethe]yn Hughes of Baltimore,
Md. at public auction in December 1961, and leased in April 1962 to Shenandoah
Brick & Tile Corp, for mineral rights, and subsequent reclamation. We are
college student employees at Shenandoah Brick & Tile Corp. for summer work and
have been assured of employment for succeeding sunmprs. luck of employment
would make it difficult for us to meet college expenses should the Shenandoah
Brick & Tile be obliged to cease operation because lack of raw ;material for
the manufacture of its product.
RESIDENT CP
NAME CITY/COUNTY COUNTY DISTRICT
;c � s! i s e/h�:,;,LGnG c;: 2.n ,: h• , ^y� - c:; Si':ei.:�n�:o=.:.:... i'
;1arz en r'arr. t`r�ti, "T .;ar �. I favor
�c
L
r. 1Pif1; s t; of oa sWloyce of fah BricA Tile d; p. I aanx the rsamRtp
at the 4w.red ft= elWaV to M2.
Tir
0 �
As a wlfe/txisi�aW of an employee of Shanrrutoah Brick & Tile Corp. I favor the resonin-
af the Warren Farm property to M2. �
SIGIRIME
Ai a wjfW/hudMW of an sWjoy� of -ShWIRWna11 Brick 6 Tile Corpe 1 favor the rescitift
of the M reo F&M 'roparty to Pe.
L _ f
ee►pta " Of OWNWOMb brick Tile Corp, I bow the ramift
' "oD+a<'v to M *
J� !
N a ti!f of to MWUVW of Sb�oah Brick i Tile carp. I Hires' MW reseinp
at US warm i*. prepery to Joe n
Jt� a *'fe;%siMW of as OWUWoe of MUMAMM Prick & Ttlo Cap, I Awe
Of wr Arrest *bras Peopty to M2. �
PETITION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISMS
Or FRFIMICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
.l e'�
-) hv�b��
�
LET IT BE XMIN that the undersigned emplovess,iof Shenandoah Brick & Tile
Corp, and their wives/oar husbands, favor the resoning fran R2 and A to M-2 of
the 202 acres,farmerly the Warner farm, and purchased by Joseph F. Hughes and
Ethelyn Hughes of Baltimore, Md. at public auction in December 1961, and leased
in April 1962 to Shenandoah Brick er. Tile Corp. for mineral rights, and subsequent
reclamation. We stand to suffer great economic loss, and msrq of us have long
years of service in the emplgY of the company, should the Shenandoah Brick & Tile
be obliged to cease operation because lack of raw material for the manufaoture
of its product.
RFSIDFNT OF
NAME CITYICWV7Y COUNTY DISTRICT
lira VUe/huuand of an easpioyea cf Mummadwh Roc ick i Tile Corp. I f8vear the retcelasQ
sasC t'hs W reaa Far. Prouty to M2. y
r MMlrt � � ofMMMWak Mick a Ti IS Carp. Ir
ors rem MMM"4a/ to Kt. /Z16
as a wife/husban(, of an enploy,: _ o S;:ena:��o�lt: "ich Z Tile t:arr . I favor the rezoning
of the a2rren Farm Pr ope: t.y to
r,s a wife/husband r)- an e; :l ee of &,xnai-oah Brick & Tile Corp. I favor the rezoning
of the Marren Farm rroperty to 1:2.
Ad a-rear aft e*UVes of Shewd" Hr#eic a Tile Carp. It MW WW "$Mi%
at !bs MW14MPam ereperw to P90 ,
a wife/husband of an er:.ployee of Shenando�::. BrickC a Tile :or I favor the rezoning
the Darren Farm Proi;erty to 112.
fi �� a
- - S Gid- - b - - - -
1. r_-
__4
/L L , 1 --
�_
PETITION TO THE BOARL OF SUPERVISORS
OF FREDERICK COMM, VIMIN7A
f-V
LET IT BE KN0kr,N that the undersigned local business concerns doing business
with Shenandoah Brick & Tile Corp. favor the rezoning from P2 and A to M2 of the
202 acres, formerly the Warner Farm, and purchased by Joseph F. Hughes and Ethelyn
Hughes of Baltimore, Md. at public auction in December 19611 and leased in April
1962 to Shenandoah Brick & Tile Corp. for mineral rights, and their subsequent
This agreement was made prior to the existence of a Frederick County zoning ordinance.
reclamation./ 'vie understand the Shenandoah Brick & Tile is in critical need of
this raw material to continue their manufacture of brick. ue also would face an
economic disadvantage as regards our association with the Shenandoah Brick & Tile
should they be forced to cease operation.
NA -1E OF BU IEESS_ _
VIRGINIA SUPREME CORPORAnO►N
Zvc Ket;41
c1 r-
COUNTY
"WIE OF BUSINESS
l�
�1.
t SHEVANDQAH GAS CQMpANY,
CITY/CCUPJTY 1
��6Qa�C
PETITION TO THE BOARD CF SUPERVISORS
CF FRMMICK CWl'P1"Y, V1WjINIA
LET IT BE 10Gn—IV that the undersigned local business concerns doing business
with Shenandoah Brick & Tile Corp. favor the rezoning from R2 and A to M2 of the
202 acres, formerly the ,arner Farm, and purchased by Joseph F. Hughes and Ethelyn
Hughes of Baltimore, Md. at public auction in December 1961, and leased in April
1962 to Shenandoah Brick & Tile Corp. for mineral rights, and their subsequent
reclamation. 'e understand t_.a Shenandoah Brick & Tile is in critical need of
this raw material to continue their manufacture of brick. �e also would face an
economic disadvantage as regards our association ith the Shenandoah Brick & Tile
should ;,aey be forced to cease operation.
0
3 2'
,4--_-
J% y
June 17, 1968
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
c/o George B. Whitacre, Clerk
Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia
Winchester, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I am informed by Mr. Seymour J. Barr, Manager
of Shenandoah Brick and Tile, Corporation, that they are endeavoring
to secure a re -zoning of land that is owned by Mr. Joseph P. Hughes,
et ux, commonly known as the Old Warner Farm, North of route#? and
East of route #81, in Stonewall Magisterial District in Frederick
County, Virginia.
Some years prior to 1960) I was approached by
Shenandoah Brick and Tile Corporation to assist them in securing
land which adjoins this present plant land. To this end, I
contacted Lee Place as this was the only acreage of any size that
would meet the requirements of Shenandoah Brick and Tile Corporation
and reasonably close to this plant, but was unsuccessful in obtaining
same.
I am writing this letter to corroborate the fact
that Shenandoah Brick and Tile Corporation had a great many years
ago endeavored to acquire land meeting their requirements to add
to the present raw material site.
Ve s,
B. M. Sullivan
JOSEPH F . HUCrHES ET UX and SHENANDOAH BRICK AND TILE CORPORAT rON- -
APPLICATION FOR REZONIM
J. Fred Larrick, Attorney at Law, presented the application
of Joseph F. Hughes et ux and Shenandoah Frick and Tile
Corporation to rezone a portion of land containing approximately
202 acres located about two miles Furst of Winchester, just North
of State Route 7, which portion of land is commonly known as the
Warner property.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the request was referred
to the Frederick County Planning Commission.
The above resolution was passed.
G - t .%" ��/iN(if�.t.. 'L[-�'✓i. /`ate) C.ti"C /ems t}✓�� �' �rS�-e��'�/`t•� �l�j �1 ��
J
s
Mr. Seymour J. Bm r.r
Shenandoah Brick & Ti 1. C—I-P.
Winchester, V:rcyinia
Dear Mr. Barr;
This is to advise you t}�., �. t:cii.nal l c>o,_i� })a- Flo oi_�jt_'c;ti.on what-
ever to your c oiiipanvv i rc.;;t_>-,E"+ use oi" tho l O:ncl ':h.?t ajoins ours
on the North si:i�. of Hou, 7 L<< o:i Winc},e�tc_r. When we pur-
chased our pru�� : r.v III lei,>�', b�'t at;'- e W1rt' o1" tl�- -. QI_ tE?
frankly, 1 was ?_:l:.v,"kr > that t}ai, 1;+1-,cJ not being
used z, s a pare�f > ,cu : c 1p— ,x t i orI .
.
Your propo.>,al
to u--., c'1.
i-t: is
called Warner
La,.ie)
has merit --
e-,pc'c i ;a i i 1CkI yuu.
p ira11
to i.; r _avt: i %.
However, aS I explained tv � r,i.t lour i i1g our Dist
Wednesday, the ru ar 2 some than"; that I can not decide inlr:Iedia.t--
ely or entirely on my ow;,.
First, the,-(-, IS thf? of tVlt}CaI11r1g in Its present:
1.ocaci.oli zan,.l sk�cund yourto it acrcass our
propeity.
Cardinal Foods has plkaris to c()n,;truct an office huildij-iq and
dairy distribution plant th(�re, and all of th_i-, must ho brought
before our Board of Directors, our architect and our c.ompanv
attorney. While I can not give you a definite time of decision,
I will certainly bring these matter--, to the attention of all
concerned and advise you at the earliest pos:;ible date.
Very truly yours,
/Af r • xw .
Maurice R. Lowernbach, Jr.
President
A
MRI.; jw
EDMOND M. DOGGS
Comm 191IONKR
• �- .
Es
�i �r / f�T;t��t�l ����.•/yf�
DEPARTMENT OF LA13OR AND INDUSTRY
DIVISION OF MINES AND QUARRIES
BIG STONE GAP, VIRGINIA
September 5, 1968
Mr. Tom Rosenberger, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
Winchester, Virginia
Dear Mr. Rosenberger:
W. FOSTER MULLINS, CHIEF
MINE INSPECTOR
I have been requested to appeal- at the Board Meeting scheduled for September 9, 1968,
at 7:30 p. m. to explain the application of Title 45 as it will affect the Shenandoah Brick
& Tile Corporation's operation in your county. Due to a problem in the coal fields which
will probably result in court action, I will be unable to attend this meeting. I will attempt
to give this information by letter hoping this will answer- any questions you may have re-
garding this type of operation and what will be required.
All open pit operations are considered by definition to be a "mine", in Section 45. 1-2,
definition 29. A license is required, as well as an annual report of materials produced,
number of employees, number days worked, wages paid, and listing of all disabling injuries.
This license must be renewed annually.
The Division of Mines' Inspectors visit these operations twice to three times each year to
check for safety hazards to the employees, excessive dust, in a mine, for example, or
plant, must be controlled and is covered by Section 45.1-66, paragraph (b). The schedule
of inspections will be increased from two to three times per year to every ninety days or
four inspections annually.
Chapter- 15 was added to Title 45, effective June 27, 1966, covering reclamation require-
ments where coal was extracted by stripping or removing overburden to recover the coal .
This law was jointly administered by the Chief Mine Inspector, Division of Mines, and the
Department of Conservation and Economic Development. Since the two agencies are in-
volved, the Strip Mine Reclamation Supervisor and his staff work out of the Division of
Mines Office in Big Stone Gap. We have two years experience dealing with the reclamation
of strip mining for coal, which is more of a problem in the mountainous section of the State
SEAT BELTS SAVE LIVES !
Mr. Tom Rosenberger
Page-2-
September 5, 1968
than that which we will have to cope with in your area. The Reclamation Inspectors who
check the coal mining operations make inspections frequently, as often as twice each
month to see that the operation is complying with the requirements of Chapter 15. The
operators of these mining areas have co-operated and complied with the law without
creating any problems. I might say that they are even proud of the results of their
reclamation practices.
Chapter 734 was approved April 5, 1968, and made a part of Title 45. This Chapter will
be administered by the same agencies as Chapter 15. The law states that on or before
July 1, 1969, every licensed operation must secure a permit and put up bond to cover the
mining operation.
Section 45.1-181 requires that every operator of a "mine" in the State must obtain a
permit paying a fee of $6 per acre, maximum fee to be $150. These permits must be re-
newed within 10 days of the anniversary date (each 12 months), the operation must be
inspected by the Reclamation Supervisor and he must be satisfied that the operation is
being worked according to the plan submitted to and approved by the Reclamation Supervisor.
At the time of the application, the "mine operator" must post bond at the rate of $50 for
each acre of land to be disturbed. The disturbed area will include the pit, stockpile area,
plant site, roads in the area and those access roads leading to and from the mining operation.
This bond is not released until the Reclamation Supervisor is satisfied that all the requirements
have been complied with.
The operator must file an accurate map with his Plan For Reclamation, showing the location
and area to be disturbed, as well as the surrounding area, roads, buildings, streams, etc.
For your information, I am enclosing a copy of Chapter 734, copies of Application for License,
copies of Application for Permit, copies of Plan for Reclamation and the standard Bond forms.
I direct your attention to the Plan for Reclamation which spells out the specific requirements
of the law as well as the statement directly above where the applicant must sign the appli-
cation. This statement gives the Reclamation Supervisor the authority to require reclamation
which will be best suited for the particular operation.
The Division of Mines and the Department of Conservation will accept their responsibility to
see that these requirements are met and we feel that we will get the same cooperation from
the surface mine operators that we are now getting from the strip mining operators. Those
who do not co-operate will be dealt with as provided in this Chapter. Penalties are provided
for failure to carry out any orders of the Chief Mine Inspector or the Director of the Depart-
ment.
�' j �
— �S" ..
�� �+
� � �' ..
�� ��
� `� \ d
\ e
Mr. Tom Rosenberger
Page 3
September 5, 1968
In the coal fields we have high schools, airports, recreation facilities (lakes and picnic
areas), bowling alleys, etc. which have been built on reclaimed strip mine areas. If the
reclaimed mine areas can be utilized in the mountainous sections of the State, where the
problem is acute, the reclamation problems in your area will be simple as compared to what
we deal with in the coal fields of Virginia. In all cases, it is my opinion that the value of
the reclaimed area is greater after mining than what the land was worth before mining.
I have visited the area under consideration and I am of the opinion, taking into account
the topography, this could be developed into a water storage area with possible residences
being constructed around the perimeter of the impoundment. Certainly this would be more
attractive after mining and the value of this property and the surrounding property as well
would be increased. The creation of water storage areas is important to any community and
those areas mined that will serve this purpose will be utilized.
This is essentially the statement I made before the Planning Commission, without going into
too many details, and I hope this will be sufficient for your meeting scheduled for September
9, 1968. If there are any questions raised by any member of your Board, I will be glad to
answer them by letter or possibly in person if my itinerary will permit.
With kindest personal regards, I remain
Very truly yours,
W. Foster Mullins
Chief Mine Inspector
WFM/dh
MOTC
<) /Y
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
IMPORTANT ---- ICESP ON HAND
REQUIREAff3NTS FOR OBTAINING A SURFACE MINE PERMIT IN VIRGINIA
1. Surface Mine operator must hold valid mining license before a
surface mine permit can be obtained.
2. Application for obtaining permit must be filed in triplicate.
3. Plan for Reclamation must be prepared in-r-ip?icae.
4. Two (2) copies of an accurate map or plan meeting the
following requirements must be submitted with application:
(a) be prepared and certified by a professional
engineer or land surveyor, which certification
shall be signed and notarized;
(b) identify the area to correspond with the
application;
(c) show adjacent deep mining, the boundaries of
surface properties and name of the owners on
the affected area and within 100 feet of any
part thereof;
(d) be of a scale of 400 feet to the inch;
(e) show the names and location of all streams,
creeks or other bodies of public water, roads,
buildings, cemeteries, oil and gas wells and
utility lines on the area affected and within
500feet thereof;
(f) show by appropriate markings the boundaries
of the area of land affected, the cropline of
the deposit to be mined, and the total number
of acres involved in the area of land affected;
(g) show the date on which the map was prepared,
the North arrow and the quadrangle name;
- 1 -
REQUIREMENTS FOR OBTAINING A SURFACE MINE PERMIT IN VIRGINIA
(Continued)
(h) show the drainage plan on and away from the area
of land affected, including the directional flow
of water, constructed drainways, natural waterways
used for drainage and the streams and tributaries
receiving the discharge.
5. Submit proper bond, surety or certified check made payable to
Treasurer of Virginia at the rate of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per
acre to be disturbed. The minimum bond will be One Thousand
Dollars ($1,000.00). When surety bond is used, the surety bond
form must be completed. A power of attorney must be affixed to
the bond. The bond policy number must be included on all bond
forms. The bond shall be executed by the operator and by a
corporate surety licensed to do business in Virginia. Acreage
to be bonded is based on area to be disturbed which includes
the area from which overburden has been removed plus the area
covered by the spoil plus any area used in such mining operation
which by virtue of their use are susceptible to excess erosion.
6. Permit Fee is Six Dollars ($6.00) per acre
proposed to be disturbed by each operation.
exceed One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00).
on (please note) the total number of acres
of land affected by the mining operation as
Virginia Division of Mines.
- 2 -
for every acre
Total fee will not
Permit fee is based
involved in the area
licensed by the
REQUIREMENTS FOR KEEPING PERMIT IN EFFECT
Within 10 days of the anniversary date of the issuance of the
permit, the operator shall file with the Department, a written report
of reclamation work performed which will include an accurate map at
scale of 1" to 400' showing the following information:
1. Number of acres disturbed last 12 months
2. Number of acres regraded last 12 months
3. Number of acres vegetated last 12 months
411. Number of undisturbed acres remaining under
original permit application
5. Number of acres estimated to be disturbed the
ensuing 12 months
Tho above report (form to be furnished by the Department) must
be notarized.
A permit shall continue to be in effect if the report and map is
received within ten (10) days of anniversary date of the issuance of
the permit and upon inspection by the Department and determination by
the Department that the operation is proceeding according to the plan
submitted and approved.
Within ten (10) days of the anniversary date, the operator must
post additional bond in the amount of $50.00 per acre for each addi-
tional acre of land estimated by him to be disturbed during the next
year following anniversary date of permit for which bond has not been
previously posted by operator.
There will be no fee required for keeping permit effective.
THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THE FILING OF REPORT AND PROGRESS MAP AND
POSTING ADDITIONAL BOND IF IT IS NECESSARY TO DO SO.
- 3 -
C%/Y
MOTC
REQUIREMENTS FOR RELEASE OF BOND
1. Upon receipt of the report called for in A-•5.1--185 Code of
Virginia, the D--partrient of Conservation will inspect the
reclamation work on lands described in the report. If the
reclamation work is approved, the Department will notify
the Division of Mines in writing to release the bond or
certified check to the operator.
(a) If the Department does not approve the
reclamation work, the operator will be notified
immediately in writing and advised of additional
steps necessary to satisfactorily complete the
reclamation. In such event, the operator shall
have ninety (90) days f rom the receipt of the
Department's order to begin such additional work
and present satisfactory evidence to the Department
that such work is in progress.
(b) If the operator does not undertake to complete the
reclamation in accordance with the Department's
order and show evidence that such work is in progress
within ninety (90) days of such order or within such
additional period of time not to exceed six (6)
months which may be granted by -the Department for
cause shown, the Department shall request and the
Chief, Division of Mines, shall order a forfeiture
of the bond or certified check posted by the operator
at the rate of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per acre or part
thereof for each acre of land involved.
2. The operator may request the Department to reclaim the disturbed
area and have bond released if:
(a) operator makes a written request to the Department
asking the Department to reclaim area;
(b) the Department surveys the land involved and
establishes the cost of reclaiming;
(c) the Department will notify the operator
immediately by registered mail the cost of
reclaiming;
(d) the operator must within thirty (30) days of
receipt of this letter establishing cost, deposit
a certified check with the Department in the
amount of cost established for reclamation;
MOTC
REQUIREMENTS FOR RELEASE OF BOND (continued)
(e) upon receipt of the check, the Director of the
Department, shall have the reclamation performed
and release the operator from further liability.
In the event the operator does not post the cost of reclamation
as set by the Director of the Department or does not request him to
set such amount, the Chief shall certify the fact to the Attorney
General, who shall proceed to collect the amount thereof.
Minerals other than coal
must:
SUMMARY
In order to obtain and hold a surface mine permit, an operator
1. Obtain mining license.
2. Submit application for permit (3 copies).
3. Submit plan for reclamation (4511copies).
4. Submit 2 copies of accurate map or plan.
(must meet requirements of Title
Map scale 1" - 6.001
5. Submit proper bond at rate of $50.00 per
acre (minimum bond, $1,000.00).
6. If permit is issued, operator must pay fee of
$6.00 per acre (maximum permit fee $150.00).
7. Permit is continued in effect if within 10 days
of anniversary date of issuance of permit, the
Director, who after inspection is made, is
satisfied that the operation is proceeding
according to the plan submitted and approved by
him, and if the operator submits:
(a) proper map and report showing number
of acres disturbed last 12 months,
number of acres reclaimed last 12
months and number of acres estimated
to be disturbed the NEXT 12 months;
(b) additional bond for additional acres
to be disturbed, if not previously
bonded.
8. If the operator wishes the Department of Conservation
and Economic Development to vegetate the area, he must
submit check for cost established by the Department
within 30 days of letter from the Department
establishing cost.
SAMPL;; LEGEND
FOR USE WITH MAPS SUBMITTED FOR SURFACE MINING OPERATIONS
COMPANY NAME:
PERMIT NO.
LOCATION:
OPERATOR:
ADDR3SS
TYP;� OF MINING
DATE:
MINE INDEX NO.
COUNTY
MAP SCALE:
LEGEND
VA.
Quadrangle of Map:
Color Code:
No.
of
acres covered by this permit
Ac.
Est.
of
area to be disturbed next 12mos.
Ac.
No.
of
acres disturbed last 12 mos.
Ac.
No.
of
acres regraded last 3.2 mos.
Ac.
No.
of
acres vegetated last ].2 mos.
Ac.
Access
Roads -:I-I==-=II;_--=-;=I=:
MAP PREPARZD BY:
NOTARIZATION
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
2 19
Notary Public
My Commission expires
2
(g) Department - The Department of Conservation and Economic
Development.
(h) Division - The Division of Mines of the Department of Labor
and Industry.
(f) Chief - The Chief of the Division of Mines.
(j) Mining operation - Any area included in an approved plan of
operation.
§ 45. 1-181. It shall be unlawful for any person or operator to engage
in any mining operation in this State, without having first obtained from
the Division a permit to engage in such operation and paying a fee there-
for of six dollars per acre for every acre proposed to be disturbed, not
to exceed the total sum of one hundred fifty dollars, which shall be
deposited in the State treasury in a special fund to be used by the Direc-
tor in performing reclamations under the provisions of this act. Such
permits shall not be transferable. A permit shall be obtained prior to
the starting of any mining operation. A permit shall continue to be in
effect if, within 10 days of the anniversary date of the permit the Direc-
tor, after inspection, is satisfied that the operation is proceeding
according to the plan submitted to and approved by him. If the operator
believes changes in his original plan are necessary or if additional land
not shown as a part of the approved plan of operation is to be disturbed,
he shall submit an amended plan of operation which shall be approved
by the Director in the same manner as an original plan and shall be sub-
ject to the provisions of §§45. 1-182 and 45. 1-183 hereof. A separate
permit must be secured for each mining operation conducted. Applica-
tion for a mining permit shall be made in writing on forms prescribed
by the Chief and shall be signed and sworn to by the applicant or his
duly authorized representative. The application, in addition to such
other information as may be reasonably required by the Chief, shall
contain the following information: (1) the common name and geologic
title, where applicable, of the mineral, ore or other solid matter to be
extracted; (2) a description of the land upon which the applicant proposes
to conduct mining operations, which description shall set forth: the name
of the county or city in which such land is located; the location of its
boundaries and any other description of the land to be disturbed in order
that it may be located and distinguished from other lands and easily
ascertainable as shown by a map attached thereto showing the amount
of land to be disturbed; (3) the name and address of the owner or owners
of the surface of the land; (4) the name and address of the owner or
owners of the mineral, ore or other solid matter; (5) the source of the
operator's legal right to enter and conduct operations on the land to be
covered by the permit; (6) the total number of acres of land to be
covered by the permit; (7) a reasonable estimate of the number of acres
of land that will be disturbed by mining operations on the area to be
covered by the permit during the ensuing year; (8) whether any mining
permits of any type are now held by the applicant and the number thereof;
0//
CHAPTER 734
Approved April 5, 1968
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia be amended by adding in Title 45. 1 a
chapter numbered 16 consisting of sections numbered 45. 1-180 through
45. 1-197, as follows:
§45. 1-180. The following words and phrases when used in this
chapter shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this
section except where the context clearly requires a different meaning:
(a) Mining - means the breaking or disturbing of the surface soil
or rock in order to facilitate or accomplish the extraction or removal
of minerals, ores, rock or other solid matter; any activity constituting
all or part of a process for the extraction or removal of minerals, ores,
rock or other solid matter so as to make them suitable for commercial,
industrial, or construction use; but shall not include those aspects of
deep mining not having significant effect on the surface, and shall not
include excavation or grading when conducted solely in aid of on -site
farming or construction. Nothing herein shall apply to strip mining of
coal.
(b) Disturbed land - The areas from which overburden has been
removed in any mining operation, plus the area covered by the spoil,
plus any areas used in such mining operation which by virtue of their
use are susceptible to excess erosion. Access roads constructed as
fire breaks whose purpose is primarily for fire fighting are excluded
from this definition, but the banks thereof are included.
(c) Overburden - All of the earth and other material which lie above
a natural deposit of minerals, ores, rock or other solid matter and also
other materials after removal from their natural deposit in the process
of mining.
(d) Spoil bank - A deposit of removed overburden.
(e) Operator - Any individual, group of individuals, corporation,
partnership, business trust, association or any legal entity which is
engaged in mining and which disturbs more than one -quarter acre of
land or removes, or intends to remove, more than one hundred tons of
minerals, ores or other solid matter in any twelve month period from
any such land by such mining operation.
(f) Director - The Director of the Department of Conservation and
Economic Development.
0//
3
(9) the name and address of the applicant, if an individual; the names and
addresses of all partners, if a partnership; the state of incorporation and
the name and address of its registered agent, if a corporation; or the name
and address of the trustee, if a trust; and (10) if known, whether applicant,
or any subsidiary or affiliate or any partnership, association, trust or
corporation controlled by or under common control with applicant, or
any person required to be identified by item (9) above, has ever had a min-
ing permit of any type issued under the laws of this or any other state
revoked or has ever had a mining or other bond, or security deposited in
lieu of bond, forfeited.
The application for a permit shall be accompanied by two copies of
an accurate map or plan and meeting the following requirements;
(a) Be prepared by a licensed engineer or licensed land surveyor;
(b) Identify the area to correspond with the land described in the appli-
cation;
(c) Show adjacent deep mining, if any, and the boundaries of surface
properties, with the names of owners of the affected area which lie within
a hundred feet of any part of the affected area;
(d) Be drawn to a scale of four hundred feet to the inch or better;
(e) Show the names and location of all streams, creeks or other bodies
of public water, roads, buildings, cemeteries, oil and gas wells, and
utility lines on the area affected and within five hundred feet of such area;
(f) Show by appropriate markings the boundaries of the area of land
affected, the outcrop of the seam at the surface or deposit to be mined,
and the total number of acres involved in the area of land affected.
(g) Show the date on which the map was prepared, the North arrow
and the quadrangle name;
(h) Show the drainage plan on and away from the area of land affected,
including the directional flow of water, constructed drainways, natural
waterways used for drainage and the streams or tributaries receiving the
discharge.
No permit shall be issued by the Division until it has received approval
in writing from the Department of the plan of operation required in §45. 1-182
and the bond from the applicant as required in 545. 1 -183.
§ 45. 1-182. At the time of filing an application for a permit, each
operator shall file with the Division a plan of operation for the mining
operations for which a permit is sought. The plan shall then be submitted
to the Director on a form to be prescribed by the Director and shall con-
tain such information as the Director may require. The plan shall contain
among other things an agreement by the operator to provide for the follow-
ing in a manner satisfactory to the Director:
(1) Removal of metal, lumber and other debris resulting from mining
operations.
(2) Regrading of the area in a manner to be established by rules and
regulations of the Director.
(3) Grading the surface in such a manner as to preserve existent access
truck roads and truck roads on and along the bench, and grading the surface
9! L
on areas where truck roads do not exist in such a manner that serviceable
truck roads may be constructed with minimum cost by persons other than
the operator for the purposes of forest fire control or recreation.
(4) Grading loose soil, refuse and other debris on the bottom of the
last cut so as to reduce the piles of such material in accordance with good
conservation practices.
(5) Planting trees, shrubs, grasses or other plants upon the parts of
such area Where revegetation is practicable.
(6) Where the operator elects to impound water to provide lakes or
ponds for wildlife, recreational or water supply purposes, such operator
shall file a formal request with the Department and obtain approval before
such ponds or lakes can be created in impounding such water.
(7) In a plan of operation submitted by a dimensional stone quarry
operator, the Director shall give due consideration to the peculiar nature
of the excavated cavity or cavities to be excavated contained in such plan.
§45. 1-183. Each operator at the time of filing his application shall
furnish bond on a form to be prescribed by the Chief payable to the Depart-
ment and conditioned that the operator shall faithfully perform all of the
requirements of this act and of the plan of operation as approved and
directed by the Department. The amount of bond shall be fifty dollars per
acre, based upon the number of acres of land which the operator estimates
will be disturbed by mining operations during the next ensuing year. The
minimum amount of bond furnished shall be one thousand dollars. Such
bond shall be executed by the operator and by a corporate surety licensed
to do business in this State; provided, however, that in lieu of such bond
the operator may deposit cash or collateral security acceptable to the
Chief.
545. 1-184. Upon receipt of a reasonable plan of operation and bond
prescribed above, the Director shall review the plan and if it meets his
approval certify this fact to the Division. If the Director disapproves the
plan, he shall furnish the applicant and the Division with his written ob-
jections thereto and his required amendments. Until the applicant shall
amend his plan of operation to meet the Director's reasonable objections
and file a satisfactory amended plan with the Director, no permit shall
be issued.
Upon receipt of the Director's approval and the required bond, the
Chief shall issue the permit unless he finds that the applicant has had con-
trol or has had common control with a person, partnership, association,
trust or corporation which has had a mining permit revoked or bond or
other security forfeited for failure to reclaim lands as required by the
laws of this State, in which event no permit shall be issued. Except,
however, if an operator who has heretofore forfeited a bond within 30
days of notice and demand by the Director pays the cost of reclamation
in excess of the amount of the forfeited bond, or if any bond is forfeited
and the amount forfeited is equal to or less than the cost of reclamation,
such operator shall then become eligible for another permit.
r //
C
for reclamation. Upon receipt of this sum, the Director shall have the
reclamation performed with the money so received and release the
operator from further liability.
In the event the operator does not post the cost of reclaiming as set
by the Director or does not request him to set such amount the Chief
shall certify the fact to the Attorney General who shall proceed to collect
the amount thereof, which, when collected, shall be deposited in the
State treasury in a special fund to be used by the Director in performing
reclamation under the provisions of this act. Furthermore, following
the order of forfeiture the Director shall perform such reclamation
operations as he deems necessary with the resources and facilities of
his Department or as provided by § 45. 1-192 hereof, the cost hereof to
be paid from the proceeds of the special fund above created.
§45. 1-187. If, during any operation, it is found that the operator's
estimate of the amount of disturbed land for which bond or other security
has been posted for reclamation is less than the actual area disturbed,
the Chief shall order the operator to file additional bond or security
sufficient to cover an amended estimate of land to be disturbed by such
operation.
545. 1-188. It shall be unlawful for any owner or owners of surface
rights or the owner or owners of mineral rights to interfere with the
operator in the discharge of his obligations to the State for the reclama-
tion of lands disturbed by him. If the owner or owners of surface rights
or the owner or owners of mineral rights desire to conduct other mining
operations on lands disturbed by the operator furnishing bond hereunder,
such owner or other person shall be in all respects subject to the provi-
sions of this act and the Chief shall then release an equivalent amount
of bonds of the operator originally furnishing bond on the disturbed area.
545. 1-189. Any operator holding a valid commercial mining license
under which any mining operations are being conducted shall comply with
the provisions hereof on or before July 1, 1969 and obtain a permit under
545. 1-182 hereof or forfeit his right to conduct mining operations under
such license.
§45. 1-190. All provisions of the mining laws of this State intended
to safeguard life and property shall extend to all mining operations inso-
far as such laws are applicable thereto. The Chief shall have the power
and authority to promulgate reasonable rules and regulations to effectuate
the purposes of this act and to protect the safety of those employed in
and around surface mines. For the administration of mining laws and
regulations, all mining operations shall be supervised by the Division.
§45. 1-191. Any violation of any provision of this act or of any order
of the Director or Chief shall be a misdemeanor- punishable by a maximum
fine of one thousand dollars or a maximum of one year in jail, or both.
61
§45. 1-185. Within ten days following the anniversary date of any
permit, the operator shall post additional bond in the amount of fifty
dollars per acre for each additional acre of land estimated by him to be
disturbed during the next year following the anniversary date of the per-
mit for which no bond has been previously posted by him. Bond or other
security previously posted shall be released for the areas disturbed in
the last twelve months if reclamation work has been completed and the
approval of the Director obtained in accordance with the following:
The operator shall file with the Department a written report on a
form to be prescribed by the Department stating under oath that reclama-
tion has been completed on certain lands and submit the following:
(a) Identification of the operation; (b) the county or city in which
it is located and its location with reference to the nearest public highway;
(c) a description of the area of land affected by the operation within the
period of time covered by such report with sufficient certainty to enable
it to be located and distinguished from other lands; (d) an accurate map
or plan prepared by a licensed land surveyor or licensed engineer show-
ing the boundary lines of the area of land affected by the operation, the
number of acres comprising such area and the methods of access to the
area from the nearest public highway.
§45. 1-186. Upon receipt of the report called for in §45. 1-185, the
Director shall cause an inspection to be made of the land described in
the report. If he shall approve the reclamation work completed by the
operator, he shall notify the Division in writing and the Chief shall
order the return of the bond or certified check to the operator.
If the Director does not approve the reclamation work, he shall
notify the operator immediately in writing and advise him of which addi-
tional steps he deems necessary to satisfactorily complete the reclama-
tion. In such event, the operator shall have ninety days from the receipt
of the Director's order to begin such additional reclamation and present
satisfactory evidence to the Director that such work is in progress. The
bond or other security posted by the operator for such land shall not be
refunded until he has obtained the Director's approval as aforesaid, and
the Director has notified the Division in writing to this effect.
If the operator does not undertake to complete the reclamation in
accordance with the notification of the Director and submit evidence to
the Director that such work is in progress within ninety days of such order
or within such additional period of time not to exceed six months which
may be granted by the Director for cause shown, the Director shall re-
quest, and the Chief shall order a forfeiture of the bond or other security
posted by the operator at the rate of fifty dollars per acre or part thereof
for each acre of land involved; or, upon the written request of the opera-
tor, the Director shall survey the land involved and establish the cost of
reclaiming such land. He shall immediately notify the operator by
registered mail, who shall within 30 days of receipt of such notice deposit
cash or a certified check with the Director the sum set by the Director
8
opinion is rendered. The filing of an appeal hereunder shall not auto-
matically stay the effect of the opinion appealed from, but, if on applica-
tion to the court, undue hardship is shown to result, the court in its
discretion may suspend the execution thereof and fix the terms.
545. 1-197. Counties, cities and towns may establish standards and
adopt regulations dealing with the same subject, provided, however, such
standards and regulations shall not be below those adopted by the Chief
and Director.
This chapter shall not be construed to repeal any local ordinance or
regulation or charter provision now in effect in any county, city or town
where the provisions are not less than the standards adopted by the Chief
and Director. The Chief may waive the application of this chapter if, in
his opinion, a county, city or town in which surface mining operations
are being conducted has enacted zoning ordinances dealing with the sub-
ject matter, prescribing standards and regulations not below those set
forth in this chapter. If the Chief waives the provisions hereof, the
operator shall comply strictly with all the provisions of the ordinances
of such counties, cities and towns in which his operations are located.
The Chief may also waive the application of this chapter as to any
mining or borrow pit operation which is conducted solely and exclusively
for a State project and which is subject by contract to the control and
supervision of a State agency, provided regulations satisfactory to the
Chief have been promulgated and are incorporated in any contract for
such removal.
2. A sum sufficient not to exceed $25, 000 per year for each year of the
biennium 1968-70 is hereby appropriated from the general fund of the
State treasury for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act.
...............................
President of the Senate
............. I.................
Speaker of the House of Delegates
Approved:
................................
Governor
oi%
7
§45. 1-192. In approving plans of operation and in issuing rules and
regulations for reclamation, the Director may avail himself and his Depart-
ment of the advice, assistance and facilities of local soil and water con-
servation district supervisors or any other federal, State or local agency.
§45. 1-193. In addition to other legal processes, the Chief or the
Division or the Director or the Department may seek injunctive relief to
enforce any rule, regulation, order or requirement issued.
545. 1-194. An appeal from any order, rule or regulation of the Depart-
ment or Division shall be taken first to the Board of Surface Mining Review
hereinafter created. Such appeal shall be taken within thirty days follow-
ing the issuance of such order, rule or regulation. Any party desiring to
appeal shall file with the Board of Surface Mining Review a notice of appeal
designating the order, rule or regulation appealed from and send a copy
thereof by registered mail to the Director or the Chief issuing such.
Upon receipt thereof, the Board shall set the hearing at a place within
the county where the major portion of the land involved in the order, rule
or regulation appealed from is located and such hearing shall be held by
the Board within sixty days from the date notice of appeal is received.
The Board shall have the power to subpoena and bring before it any
person in this State or take testimony of any such person by deposition
with the same fees and mileage in the same manner as prescribed by law
in judicial procedure in courts of this State in civil cases. Any party to
any hearing before the Board shall have the right to the attendance of
witnesses in his behalf.
545. 1-195. There is hereby created the Board of Surface Mining Re-
view to be composed of the Director of the Department of Conservation and
Economic Development and three members to be appointed by the Governor,
two of whom shall be surface mining operators who have been engaged in
such operation continuously for five years preceding their appointment,
and one property owner who at the time of his appointment owns land or is
an executive officer of a corporation which owns land upon which surface
mining operations have been or are being conducted. The appointive
members shall serve for terms of four years each, except appointments
to fill vacancies which shall be for unexpired terms, all of whom shall
hold office at the pleasure of the Governor for their respective terms.
The Board shall elect its own chairman. The members of the Board shall
receive no compensation for their services but shall be entitled to re-
ceive their necessary traveling and other expenses incurred in the per-
formance of their duties. The sole duty of the Board shall be to hear
appeals from orders issued by the Department or Division under this chap-
ter, and the procedure for determining such appeals shall be as provided
by §45.1-194.
545. 1-196. Any person aggrieved by any opinion issued by the Board
shall have the right of appeal to the circuit court of the county in which the
land or a major portion thereof which is involved in the opinion appealed
from, is located. Such appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the
G/ j
ScI ten.bcr 7, 1968
TO i•[HU-11 IT MAY COiEMN
I never have had reason to complain to the brick company about
their shale pit operation. To the best of rqy knowledge, my neighbors
have not cornplai.ned eit;:c Tl.i s is as far. -,is I know.
The noise is not objectionable., but; in my opinion there is more
noise from highs -:ay traffic, r)as t Yculaxl.y road- traff1c, at night. I
:�oulc not :.ant to live; closer. tc the in;�in hlgh,ac�.y tha.r� I do no>>.
I can say that the brick plant and I have been good neighbors.
I don't have a thin;; against the brick company. I have had no
objection to the simall dust coming f,^om the shale field„ The bushes
and trees stop most of the dust. There is more dust; set up by the
traffic on the gravel road in front of ray house. The road in front
of my house is next the edge of the shale field.
I painted my house last about fcn-Lr or five years ago, but I am
not ready to repaint yet. The porch has not been washed in three
or fcrar weeks and it looks pretty good to me.
I Bve lived on Baker -Knight Street since .1.925 -wad in the same
house for 25 years.
I own the house next to the house I live In. P•y son lives next
to this housed They have not complained either.
Ester. Uilliam
WITI IM TO STAMIENT:
Lynwood Hall
I certify that the above is a true copy.
Subscribed and
s,Jjorn to before
me this day
of -p
1961 in the
�i
of
1•1y Commission expires _ a«n_ t 9 196 ? -a
September 9, 1968
TO V801fi IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to advise that I visited the present shale field of
Shenandoah Brick & Tile Corp. with Mr. Barr for the purpose of
making qualitative tests for the presence of carbonates. These
carbonates, Mr. Barr concludes, are a contaminate in the raw material
resulting; in the need for a chemical addition to offset the contamina-
tion. The material. at the Fast end of the property along Baker -Knight
Street and adjacent; to the property owned by Lee Place was tested and
found to be contaminated.
The property owned by Barnhart, formerly owned by Lockhart,
and located. just East of Interstate 81, was also checked for con-
tamination and a similar contaminate was found in this source of raw
material.
The shale raw material at the Last end of the Warner farm, where
three experimental cuts were made, was also tested. There was no
contamination found in this raw material.
I certify these statements to be true on the basis of my
observations and tests conducted at the sites described above.
Dr. R, C, Evans
Chemist
196a
a
4, 196S
Y
Eo o X
16 a
/07
3910
CJmQs Qrc.kara�
q rnt, W• of106 �S3 --
/0 e 41 %ot
_-
/0
!3
4;za_P_
le
asY_
��O-
Al)
1a 9
S3�
iL0
uua. __
53 9 -
//0
_ 7i7
iil
! va
/ll
530
1
AT
cry __
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain;ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp,
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned,
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (containing approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp.
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned.
W. "waiX"-
X W'Orwl
am.
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property.
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain4ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp.
Therefore„ the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
p rvisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned,
Le'-f-
- �
YA
i
-7
T
!/
J
t
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain;ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp,
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned.
fL
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
lie, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain;ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp.
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as prese tly zoned.
V--,
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain;ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp.
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned.
_�f
request the Frederick County Board of
maintaining subject land as presently zoned.
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (containing approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp.
Therefore, the undersigned
Supervisors to vote in favor of
lie
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain;ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp.
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned,
paw M-,
'f �-/ �/ I
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain;ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp.
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned.
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
We, the undersigned, oppose t
property (contain;ng approximately
agricultural to industrial for the
Brick and Tile Corp.
he rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
202 acres of land) from residential/
purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned,
WNW
.� I... .
::W
311
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
We, the undersigned, oppose t
property (contain;ng approximately
agricultural to industrial for the
Brick and Tile Corp.
he rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
202 acres of land) from residential/
purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned.
to POWN .,
a
1�
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain;ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp,
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned.
MM i
, � 0.41
1
r
3
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
Ile, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain;ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp.
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned.
'al-M 0 0/64 amm
/'9
� 6171Y
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors r�£d£�,I ts
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
Ile, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain;ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp.
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned.
•
r i.
►4 f / .
W.
r
II►I _ .. 11
Wi- .�
/ /
y / PAY., MA
Arm,
a►
/Vz� A/
8
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
Ile, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain;ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp.
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned.
Cq/
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain;ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp,
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned,
w
r
To: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Subject: Rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes Property
1 d`L r G/,C, �'l� I �/145
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Joseph F. Hughes
property (contain;ng approximately 202 acres of land) from residential/
agricultural to industrial for the purpose of stripmining by Shenandoah
Brick and Tile Corp.
Therefore, the undersigned request the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors to vote in favor of maintaining subject land as presently zoned.
z
S Z
BE IT KNOWN that the undersigned oppose the rezoning of
206 acres, more or less, formerly belonging to Edgar Warner,
Deceased, subsequently sold to parties not known at this time and
leased by those parties to Shenandoah Brick and Tile Corporation,
from its present zoning of partly R-2 and partly agricultural
to any other zoning classification. The ar.oresaid property is
located one half mile East of Winchester on the North side of
Route 7 and adjoining the properties of 'Dr. George Smith,
L. P. Cole, Dennis T. Cole, Eddie Costello, Richard F. Farmer, and
Lee Place.
� I -x - // //,t/? Ir- i I el-
I
f
Zy
Q'r'7 L C,
t
L41 �, 2,rlzjvy
P V, IL,
.9, WROWRO, 1
MCI
0
ti